Tag Archives: Food

The Wall Street Chameleon: Big Insurance at an Inflection Point | EP 1

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/the-wall-street-chameleon-big-insurance

In Episode 1 of the HEALTH CARE un-covered Show, we examine what may be an inflection point in the health insurance reform debate. Plus, we’re joined by pollster Madeline Conway of Impact Research.

The volume of claims is treated as proof of misconduct, despite the fact that the statute imposes no limit on IDR submissions and explicitly allows for repeated use when payment disputes continue. Further, insurers base this claim on estimates of IDR submissions that were deeply flawed, forecasting nationwide utilization on the experience of one state.

The message is unmistakable: providers are not accused of breaking the NSA, but rather of utilizing it too effectively. For instance, insurers claim that providers submitted “thousands” of IDR disputes, including nearly “200 overlapping proceedings for the same services” across both the federal and state IDR systems, and batched an average of 66 separate items or services into a single IDR filing: Insurers describe these statistics as “overwhelming,” despite the fact that each dispute is linked to a corresponding payment denial or gross underpayment.

Recasting Physician Disputes as “Fraud”

Each lawsuit hones in on physician NSA disputes and castigates them as some kind of “fraud” or “abuse.” The HaloMD lawsuits are a prime example of the insurer taking an NSA dispute, challenging the disputes eligibility for arbitration and then recasting it as “fraud.” What these lawsuits notably fail to recognize is that the outcomes of IDR are determined by independent arbitrators, called certified IDR entities (IDREs), not by the providers themselves.

According to CMS’s public-use files, 82% of 2024 disputes and 80% of 2025 disputes were found eligible for arbitration. This is orders of magnitude greater than what the government had estimated. What these numbers tell us is that the problem with the volume of disputes is not a conspiracy by doctors to abuse this system, but systemic underpayment by insurers, as we have reported.

In the lawsuits, insurers concede that it was the arbitrators, not the providers, who rendered the final awards in these disputes. Insurers also consistently and publicly voice their concerns that NSA awards surpass the Qualifying Payment Amount (QPA), often describing results that are ‘multiples’ of the median in-network rates or even exceeding billed charges. Insurers assert that IDR awards are excessive, “citing CMS data showing that they are on average slightly over 300% of the QPA” of the QPA.

However, a recent analysis shows that the reported QPAs consistently underestimate the actual median in-network rates, with an average discrepancy of 290% in cases where such discrepancies are present. A pervasive problem reported by providers and evident in the public-use files shows thousands of initial offers for payment that amount to less than a dollar. In one documented case involving high-acuity emergency care, the insurer calculated the QPA at $0.01. The arbitrator ultimately awarded $1,196. The gap was not evidence of an inflated charge; it was evidence that the benchmark itself was flawed.

This underestimation is attributed to calculations controlled by insurers, insufficient oversight, and the omission of market factors that Congress mandated arbitrators to consider.

Simply disagreeing with an IDRE’s assessment does not equate to fraud. Rather than modifying payment practices, enhancing negotiations, or pursuing legislative clarity, insurers have opted for litigation as a tool to crush providers while claiming unfavorable arbitration results as evidence that the system is being “manipulated.” They are both arsonists and firefighters.

The Litigation Boa Constrictor

Across jurisdictions, insurers clearly claim that defendants engaged in “coordinated enterprises,” “strategic partnerships,” or “associations-in-fact,” alleging RICO violations founded on the concurrent use of IDR, common billing vendors, and simultaneous filings, even though there is no statutory restriction against coordinated IDR usage or shared administrative frameworks.

The recurring themes in these filings are hard to overlook. In the last 12 months, there have been 11 lawsuits targeting use of the No Surprises Act, four alleging RICO violations and five seeking treble damages.

So far, this coordinated lawfare effort includes the following suits:

  • Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas v. HaloMD et al. (E.D. Tex., Aug. 2025)
  • Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas v. Zotec Partners, LLC (E.D. Tex., Dec. 2025)
  • Anthem Health Plans of Virginia v. AGS Health / SCP Health et al. (W.D. Va., Nov. 2025)
  • Community Insurance Co. (Anthem Ohio) v. HaloMD et al. (S.D. Ohio, June 2025)
  • Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of Georgia v. HaloMD et al. (N.D. Ga., May 2025)
  • Anthem Blue Cross (CA) v. HaloMD et al. (C.D. Cal., July 2025)
  • Anthem Blue Cross (CA) v. Prime Healthcare entities (C.D. Cal., Jan. 2026)
  • UnitedHealthcare of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. NorthStar Anesthesia of Pennsylvania, LLC (E.D. Pa., Dec. 2025)
  • UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. v. Maui Emergency Care Physicians, LLC (D. Haw., Jan. 2026)
  • United Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Concord Company of Tennessee, PLLC (W.D. Ky., Jan. 2026)
  • UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co. v. Radiology Partners, LLC (D. Ariz, Aug. 2025)

These prosecutions follow a distinct pattern of allegations: strategic batching, simultaneous filings, excessive offers, false statements, and an alleged conspiracy to take advantage of IDR. Even when the factual circumstances vary, the narrative remains the same. This consistency indicates not an independent discovery of wrongdoing, but a calculated strategy.

The targets of these lawsuits represent the full spectrum of organizations utilizing the NSA. From revenue cycle management (HaloMD) to large physician staffing organization (SCP) to small physician practice management group (Concord Company), insurers are constricting the entire provider community hoping to alter the NSA through legal outcomes.

Litigation as Press Release

The litigation involving Prime Healthcare highlights this strategy particularly well. In this case, insurers openly admit that hospitals are utilizing IDR instead of balance billing patients, precisely what Congress intended, yet they still label this behavior as abusive because it led to payments that were higher than what insurers were prepared to offer. Lawful reliance on IDR is recast in this complaint as “extractive,” “indiscriminate,” or “profitable abuse,” as if the issue lies not with insurer underpayment but with the presence of an independent referee who has the authority to disagree with them.

The impact on the real world is far from just a theory. These lawsuits aim for treble damages, annulment of arbitration awards, and injunctions intended to completely deny providers future access to IDR. The message from insurers is clear: engage in the IDR process established by Congress, and you will face consequences. Providers who utilize IDR are not seen as legitimate participants in a federal program; instead, they are viewed as targets, labeled as racketeers, pulled into costly litigation, and compelled to defend their right to contest underpayment. These lawsuits serve as a deterrent and act as a warning to discourage providers from engaging in IDR by making the costs of participation excessively burdensome.

Breaking the NSA Balance

No lawsuit will have more far reaching consequences for physicians than UnitedHealthcare v NorthStar Anesthesia (the insurer has filed five similar lawsuits). While this suit follows the usual script of allegations it aims for something more pernicious than unflattering headlines: declaratory judgment of fraud for ineligible disputes. The eligibility of an NSA dispute rests solely with CMS and the independent arbitrator – they are administrative. Physicians have repeatedly shown that insurers withhold critical information needed to determine a claim’s eligibility, the result being that occasionally physicians will dispute a claim that is ineligible for arbitration. According to CMS, with more than 80% of claims sent to arbitration being determined as eligible, these mistakes are the exception, not the rule.

However, if UnitedHealthcare is granted the relief it seeks, insurers will be able to challenge dispute eligibility in court, outside of arbitration, and receive direct judgments of “fraud” against physicians who have filed ineligible claims. A declaratory judgment of fraud would not simply reverse a payment. It would create precedent allowing insurers to relitigate administrative eligibility decisions in federal court and seek damages for disputes that arbitrators have already accepted into the federal process. This elevates an administrative error into reputational and legal risk that no physician practice could withstand.

The NSA’s public policy goal of removing patients from billing disputes, was buttressed by leveling the playing field between physician practices and insurance behemoths. The sweeping effects of this case will fundamentally alter the scales in favor of insurers and not just chill, but shut out doctors from obtaining fair reimbursement.

Shifting the balance of power

This situation should alarm policymakers as well as doctors and their patients. It embodies the risk of extended, multi-faceted litigation initiated by trillion-dollar insurance conglomerates targeting individual physicians, small practices, and safety-net hospitals that do not possess equivalent resources.

This pressure does not safeguard patients. Instead, it discourages providers from contesting underpayment, shifts the balance of power firmly back to insurers, and dissuades the use of the very system intended to resolve disputes and protect patients. In the meantime, insurers leverage extensive financial resources to maintain coordinated litigation efforts while depicting providers, especially those offering emergency care, as wrongdoers for employing the only legal remedy available.

Ultimately, these legal actions are not aimed at preventing misconduct. Instead, they focus on altering market structure. By transforming the routine application of IDR into a significant litigation risk, insurers are indicating that independent providers who challenge payment terms will face penalties instead of negotiations.

The foreseeable outcome is the consolidation of providers: small practices, emergency physician groups, and safety-net hospitals will be compelled to sell, affiliate, or close rather than endure the costs and uncertainties associated with defending against repeated federal lawsuits. As we’ve reported, Optum now employs more than 90,000 clinicians. Simultaneously, this approach accelerates the vertical integration of insurers, directing care toward entities that are either owned or aligned with insurers, which are shielded from payment disputes and arbitration. Within this context, the courts do not serve as a venue for resolving conflicts; they function as a mechanism for enforcing market discipline. This undermines the fundamental objective of the No Surprises Act to balance bargaining power and, in turn, reinforces insurer dominance over pricing, networks, and access to care.

A law meant to protect patients and equalize bargaining power is being weaponized by insurers to suppress those who question insurer payment practices and, in doing so, to silence the underdog.

The Insurance Industry’s Old Trick: Flooding the Zone

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/the-insurance-industrys-old-trick?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=192102166&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Nearly 47,000 comments hit regulators. Most weren’t written by seniors — they were engineered by insurers and their front groups.

When the federal government opened a public comment period earlier this year on Medicare Advantage payment rates for 2027, which were far lower than what private health insurers had expected from the Trump administration, something remarkable happened. Comments poured in at a record-breaking pace — nearly 47,000 in all, an all-time high for a Medicare rate notice.

Regulators took notice. A senior CMS official, perhaps trying to lighten the mood, joked that the flood of input might be “another innovation related to AI.”

It was a good line. But the reality was less amusing.

According to an analysis earlier this month by KFF Health News, about 82% of the more than 16,400 publicly available comments were identical to a letter that appeared on the website of a secretive advocacy group called Medicare Advantage Majority — a “dark money” organization that does not reveal its funders, other than to say it is “dedicated to protecting and strengthening Medicare Advantage” and is “powered by hundreds of thousands of local advocates nationwide.”

The letter warned that without higher reimbursements, seniors would face higher costs and fewer benefits. It was signed by thousands of people who almost certainly believed they were speaking for themselves. They were speaking for the industry.

The extent of the deception ran deeper than form letters. KFF Health News found at least one case that illustrates the tactic’s recklessness. Corenia Branham, a 90-year-old widow and cancer survivor in West Virginia, said she never submitted any comment to CMS — yet four form letters appeared online under her name. Branham, who isn’t even on Medicare Advantage, was unambiguous about her views: “I wouldn’t recommend it to nobody.” A spokesperson for Medicare Advantage Majority claimed she had responded to an ad on Facebook. Whether she understood that doing so would put her name on federal regulatory comments is another matter entirely.

Alongside the comment flood, insurers and MA associations funded research, launched ads, rounded up signatures, and met with government officials, submitting a barrage of comments arguing the proposed rule would be disastrous for payers and the seniors they serve. The Better Medicare Alliance, backed by the nation’s largest health insurers, led the charge. So did AHIP, the industry’s primary lobbying group. (And don’t believe for a minute that Medicare Advantage Majority wasn’t funded by the industry, too. In my old career in the insurance business I used to work with Washington propaganda shops to help set up front groups like that.)

The advertising blitz was impossible to miss if you spent any time in Washington. If you visited Washington’s Union Station in recent months and checked the monitor listing train departure times, you would be hard pressed to miss the large electronic billboards around them from an organization called the Coalition for Medicare Choices, another front group, featuring worried-looking seniors warning against cuts to Medicare Advantage. Despite billing itself as a grassroots organization, the Coalition for Medicare Choices was founded out of the same offices as AHIP. The Better Medicare Alliance — whose membership includes UnitedHealth, Humana, and Aetna — ran its own paid media campaign. The group spent over $13.5 million on ads, while yet another dark-money group added $2 million more.

What looked like a nationwide groundswell of concerned seniors was, in large part, a carefully coordinated pressure campaign designed to move our tax dollars — tens of billions of them – to insurance conglomerates that operate private Medicare Advantage plans.

This playbook is not new. It has a name: astroturfing. The term was coined in 1985 by Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who described a “mountain of cards and letters” sent to his office demanding his support for a bill favorable to the insurance industry. “A fellow from Texas can tell the difference between grass roots and AstroTurf,” Bentsen famously said. “This is generated mail.”

Forty years later, the insurance industry is still running the same play — only now with the tools of the internet, AI-assisted drafting, Facebook ads, and front groups bearing names designed to sound like patient advocates.

I know this tactic well. I helped write the playbook.

For years, as a senior executive at one of the country’s largest health insurers, I watched — and participated in — campaigns that manufactured the appearance of public support for industry-friendly policies. The goal was always the same: to make regulators and lawmakers believe that ordinary Americans were rising up in defense of private insurance, when in fact it was the industry pulling the strings. We called it grassroots outreach. It was anything but.

Shooting the Messenger: The Campaign to Discredit MedPAC

Flooding the CMS comment docket with form letters was only one front in the industry’s pressure campaign. Another target was the independent agency whose numbers made the strongest case for reform: the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, better known as MedPAC.

MedPAC is a nonpartisan congressional advisory body with no financial stake in the outcome of Medicare policy. As we reported earlier, MedPAC’s January 2026 status report estimated that Medicare Advantage overpayments are projected to be $76 billion — or 14% more — above what spending would be in traditional Medicare for the same beneficiaries this year. That finding was politically inconvenient for the industry, so the industry set about undermining it.

The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed calling MedPAC’s methodology into question, with the editorial board going so far as to call for MedPAC to be defunded. Industry-backed lobbying groups like the Better Medicare Alliance and the Healthcare Leadership Council – an outfit formed by Humana founder David Jones and other top industry executives in the late 1980s to shape federal policy – amplified the editorial and supported legislation that would dictate how MedPAC’s staff can conduct research.